[pickledpepperRN]

A gap in GOP candidates' healthcare proposals

Giuliani, McCain and Thompson are offering plans to help the uninsured -- but their aversion to regulations would mean that many of their fellow cancer survivors would be left out.

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 20, 2007

WASHINGTON -- When Rudolph W. Giuliani was diagnosed with prostate cancer in the spring of 2000, one thing he did not have to worry about was a lack of medical insurance.

Today, the former New York mayor joins two other cancer survivors in seeking the Republican presidential nomination: Arizona Sen. John McCain has been treated for melanoma, the most serious type of skin malignancy, and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson had lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system.

All three have offered proposals with the stated aim of helping the 47 million people in the U.S. who have no health insurance, including those with preexisting medical conditions.

But under the plans all three have put forward, cancer survivors such as themselves could not be sure of getting coverage -- especially if they were not already covered by a government or job-related plan and had to seek insurance as individuals....

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...la-home-center

[pickledpepperRN]

I do NOT like the idea of tax money going to insurance companies.

Health-Care Plans Aid Industry

November 19, 2007; Page A8
WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidates like to beat up on insurance companies, but there is a lot for the industry to like in their health-care plans -- starting with plenty of new business.

"Here's the potential for a whole new pool of lives for them to cover, with payment behind it," said Benjamin Isgur, assistant director of PricewaterhouseCoopers' Health Research Institute, which examined the presidential health plans' impact on industry. The study, a comprehensive look at health-care plans offered by candidates in both parties, also concludes that doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers would likely benefit since more patients with insurance suggest more would seek care and be able to pay their bills.

...Further, all the Democrats' plans would hasten the day when government pays the biggest share of the nation's $2 trillion health-care bill. Already, government pays 47%. Increased spending of $100 billion a year could bring that to 50% by 2011, six years earlier than maintaining the current course....

...Democrats are promising to get tough with insurers, principally by requiring them to cover all who apply and preventing them from charging those who are sick more.
Those proposals are anathema to the industry, but less so when they are coupled with a mandate that everyone buy insurance in the first place. Without that mandate, insurers fear that sick people will disproportionately seek insurance, without healthy people in the pool to balance them out financially. With a mandate, that's less of a problem.

The early signals from the insurance industry, which played a major roll in killing health-care reform in 1994, are positive...

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...l?mod=rss_free

[pickledpepperRN]

Obama-Clinton health debate ignores real issue
Tuesday, January 15, 2008

THE DEBATE BETWEEN Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on health care probably looks like a small nuance in two proposals that are remarkably similar. But the issue at the center of their dispute reflects a lot about our present health-care system and how to achieve genuine reform.

What’s generating the heat is a concept called “individual mandate” — using the power of government to force uninsured individuals to buy health insurance.

Senator Clinton claims that the only way to achieve “universal” coverage is to require everyone to have insurance.
Senator Obama says people don’t have insurance not because they don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. Both are skipping the main problem.

It’s true that no plan can be called “universal” unless everybody is in….

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contrib...9.2b0ee8e.html

[lamazeteacher]

There's a cost factor largely ignored in the debates about health care, and that is the amount of money deducted from income tax by persons whose health care costs are above 7.5% of their incomes.

Those deductions would no longer happen, when all costs are borne by "single payer", leaving greater income for the government to use on health care and other programs benefiting us.

[lamazeteacher]

Commonwealth Fund on candidates' reform proposals
(Don McCanne)

"Of the three basic models for reform, the Republican proposals that
would use tax incentives for purchasing private, individual health
plans can be dismissed as being non-responsive to the key principles
listed."

[ksilty]

Originally Posted by DarrenWright

I think it rather does.

You can't criticize the profits of insurance and pharmacuetical companies with an credibility when you supported self-enrichment from the same activity by a different means, especially in a manner that provided no benefit to the system itself. At least insurance companies provide compensation and pharmacuetical companies provide therapies. What contribution did her husband make? He only took.

Ordering stock medications for my public health clinic and a family medicine practice turned out to be an eye-opening experience in terms of the criticism Drug Companies draw from the public. No one thinks about the mark-up at the pharmacy level - that's where the money is. For example, I bought oral contraceptives (top brand) for $2.35/pack. Local pharmacies charge $30. or more for that same pack of pills. I realize that Public Health earns the lowest price by law, but large pharmacy chains enjoy enough buying power to negotiate good prices from suppliers. Same thing at Hopkins, I ordered a 25-vial box of Albuterol Neb soln for $5.20. If we ran out and couldn't wait for out delivery, I would run to the pharmacy for an emergency supply. Same box - $25.80. Where's the money???? I know drug companies make a bundle, but the cost of bringing a new drug to market is out of sight, especially since you only have 6 or 7 years of patent time to recoup your costs. There are a few unscrupulous companies out there, like the one that broke our Health Dept budget during the Anthrax scare in Maryland because they wouldn't give us a discount on Cipro, but most give back a little bit. I have always had good luck getting free meds from companies when I had patients on chronic meds they couldn't afford. I would love to hear the pharmacy chains defend themselves, but few people realize just how much they make. By the way, kudos to WalMart and Target for their $4 generic prescriptions, the list is a good one too.

[lamazeteacher]

Originally Posted by ksilty

Ordering stock medications for my public health clinic and a family medicine practice turned out to be an eye-opening experience in terms of the criticism Drug Companies draw from the public. No one thinks about the mark-up at the pharmacy level - that's where the money is. For example, I bought oral contraceptives (top brand) for $2.35/pack. Local pharmacies charge $30. or more for that same pack of pills. I realize that Public Health earns the lowest price by law, but large pharmacy chains enjoy enough buying power to negotiate good prices from suppliers. Same thing at Hopkins, I ordered a 25-vial box of Albuterol Neb soln for $5.20. If we ran out and couldn't wait for out delivery, I would run to the pharmacy for an emergency supply. Same box - $25.80. Where's the money???? I know drug companies make a bundle, but the cost of bringing a new drug to market is out of sight, especially since you only have 6 or 7 years of patent time to recoup your costs. There are a few unscrupulous companies out there, like the one that broke our Health Dept budget during the Anthrax scare in Maryland because they wouldn't give us a discount on Cipro, but most give back a little bit. I have always had good luck getting free meds from companies when I had patients on chronic meds they couldn't afford. I would love to hear the pharmacy chains defend themselves, but few people realize just how much they make. By the way, kudos to WalMart and Target for their $4 generic prescriptions, the list is a good one too.

Costs of drugs to consumers are relative to their premiums (e.g. $4. plan), and the taxes involved. I (not on that plan) went to one of the $4. pharmacies for HCTZ # 90, and while Costco charges $14. for the same amount, that store wanted $30.+ Naturally, I spent the extra gas necessary to hotfoot it over to Costco to fill my prescription..........
Neither store advises patients to avoid licorice while on HCTZ, which causes the expense for that diuretic to be in vain. (Sigh)

Canada managed to negotiate much lower prices for the medications its populace requires, which is why so many Americans went there (including me) for their meds. However, since I have family there, I go to a pharmacist known well by my sister. Time isn't wasted there, comparing prices, as all meds (except a few) are paid by the government, and don't vary in price. You just choose the one closest to home or on your way home (often right in the underground subway shopping area in Toronto and Montreal), and with faster, courteous service (which is sometimes lacking at Costco). Yes, when I get my life together, I'll go back.

[ksilty]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

” …We don't have universal health care in this country because powerful corporations who profit from health care beat us. The pharmaceutical companies stole our tax money when they successfully lobbied, maybe the better words are "bullied" and "threatened," their way into protecting their industry from that old free market practice of bargaining for the best price...” Elizabeth Edwards

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/edwa...Vj0jD-NDKPdgjZ

Please tell me you are not quoting Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John? Female malpractice attorney who, with her husband, has made millions in medical malpractice, thus driving up the cost of our healthcare????? Must be another Elizabeth Edwards......

[ksilty]

Originally Posted by DarrenWright

Hardly imaginable it seems.

We will still make mistakes, and it should be remediated. Unfortunately, a universal, single-payer/socialized system will never support the gargantuan settlements won in today's litigation. In fact, I would expect malpractice incidents to increase because the rationing of services would likely lead to an increase in misdiagnosis.

It is very difficult to sue the Federal Government, so the one good thing that woule evolve from universal hc is tort reform.

[pickledpepperRN]

Originally Posted by ksilty

Please tell me you are not quoting Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John? Female malpractice attorney who, with her husband, has made millions in medical malpractice, thus driving up the cost of our healthcare????? Must be another Elizabeth Edwards......

Regardless of the messenger our healthcare and medication costs are overpriced.
I think profit and multimillion dollar pay to executives who don't provide any healthcare keep the costs rising.

Maybe it would be more equitable for doctors and nurses to make the higher pay?